Once again, and this bears repeating, if the LDs have any chance of attracting disillusioned Conservatives (and these are the votes needed in all bar one of the most marginal seats the LDs need to gain) they cannot be seen to be gifting Corbyn the keys to No.10 no matter how "temporary" such an arrangement.
The Conservatives who are contemplating such an action will be verbally eviscerated by the Mail and while it would be harder for CCHQ, it's not easy to imagine "Vote x, get Corbyn" being trumpeted from the nearest rooftop.
Enabling even the briefest of Corbyn tenures at No.10 might deliver a short term reprieve from No Deal but it would be electorally suicidal - the outcome would be a Conservative landslide, a decade or more of their ruinous misrule and we'd leave without a Deal anyway.
I believe there is a majority in the Commons against a No Deal Brexit but that means little or nothing. I simply cannot conceive of a Conservative supporting a VoNC to enable Corbyn to become PM - I can imagine Conservatives supporting a well-worded motion opposing a No Deal and the question will be if Boris ignores Parliament (probably electorally popular) and rejects any extension offered by the EU. He has to or he's finished.
There will then be no scintilla of doubt who has led us over the cliff and who will own the consequences despite what I imagine will be the many and varied attempts to blame "Remainers" from those supportive of Johnson.
But to win Tory seats the LibDems need many Labour voters to tactically support them. Swinson's response yesterday makes that more difficult and makes it easier to remind such voters of their recent history as Tory Little Helpers.Perhaps Brecon & Radnor would have turned out differently had this happened two weeks ago. Labour's vote there might have held up better to the detriment of the LibDems.
Yes, purge. If the hardcore Remainers bring down the government they will be purged. That's what happens when you bring down your own government.
It will be sad to see @HYUFD thrown or of the Conservative Party.
Not to me, he's a bit of a crank
J/K. Actually the article quoted says that arch-Remainers will have to reconcile themselves to leaving and accept that like Amber Rudd has done, or be purged. HYUFD was a trailblazer for Rudd so he'll be fine.
Thanks for header. I think Trump will lose regardless. One term of this is surely quite sufficient. But yes, I must admit I would feel a bit more relaxed if their economy were to slip into recession. Ideally it would be one impacting purely the Rust Belt with job losses restricted to those who voted for him in 2016. If only Carlsberg made recessions ...
Yes, purge. If the hardcore Remainers bring down the government they will be purged. That's what happens when you bring down your own government.
It will be sad to see @HYUFD thrown or of the Conservative Party.
Not to me, he's a bit of a crank
J/K. Actually the article quoted says that arch-Remainers will have to reconcile themselves to leaving and accept that like Amber Rudd has done, or be purged. HYUFD was a trailblazer for Rudd so he'll be fine.
He is a man of principle. As a hardcore remainer he'll struggle.
The FBPE / Corbynite battle is one of the more amusing Brexit subplots.
United in what they don't want....much less clear about what they do.....
Like MPs, and like difficult small children. The way to deal with this is to present them with a binary choice: WA or No-Deal? Revoke or No-Deal? etc.
Indeed which is what Boris now doing. Quite right too.
Theresa May was always absurd. She said "it is this deal or you risk no deal or no Brexit" every time, trying to threaten the no dealers with no Brexit while simultaneously threatening the no Brexiteers with no deal . . . but quite predictably the no dealers said "no deal then" and the no Brexiteers said "no Brexit then".
Once again, and this bears repeating, if the LDs have any chance of attracting disillusioned Conservatives (and these are the votes needed in all bar one of the most marginal seats the LDs need to gain) they cannot be seen to be gifting Corbyn the keys to No.10 no matter how "temporary" such an arrangement.
The Conservatives who are contemplating such an action will be verbally eviscerated by the Mail and while it would be harder for CCHQ, it's not easy to imagine "Vote x, get Corbyn" being trumpeted from the nearest rooftop.
Enabling even the briefest of Corbyn tenures at No.10 might deliver a short term reprieve from No Deal but it would be electorally suicidal - the outcome would be a Conservative landslide, a decade or more of their ruinous misrule and we'd leave without a Deal anyway.
I believe there is a majority in the Commons against a No Deal Brexit but that means little or nothing. I simply cannot conceive of a Conservative supporting a VoNC to enable Corbyn to become PM - I can imagine Conservatives supporting a well-worded motion opposing a No Deal and the question will be if Boris ignores Parliament (probably electorally popular) and rejects any extension offered by the EU. He has to or he's finished.
There will then be no scintilla of doubt who has led us over the cliff and who will own the consequences despite what I imagine will be the many and varied attempts to blame "Remainers" from those supportive of Johnson.
But to win Tory seats the LibDems need many Labour voters to tactically support them. Swinson's response yesterday makes that more difficult and makes it easier to remind such voters of their recent history as Tory Little Helpers.Perhaps Brecon & Radnor would have turned out differently had this happened two weeks ago. Labour's vote there might have held up better to the detriment of the LibDems.
That assumes that Labour voters are keen to have Corbyn as PM, I'm not sure that is the case.
But the problem with this argument is that it depends on hypotheses about how voters might behave at a future general election. You may well be right of course, but it is impossible to be sure, and, as we all know, the generally-accepted hypotheses that led to the 2017 general election proved to be completely wrong.
If Swinson is so convinced that Corbyn cannot get a majority in the Commons she should offer to support him in return for a commitment that he will support someone else if he does not win. This would put him on the spot and also rebuild the Lib Dems position as a party that is focused on avoiding no deal.
Anecdotally the comments on my local anti-Brexit whatsapp group last night were not complimentary about Swinson.
The antipathy to Corbyn among those not inclined to Labour (and indeed among some inclined to vote Labour) seems pretty real to this observer. The other aspect is Corbyn isn't the kind who, once his foot in the door, is going to let go. We've seen with May how difficult it is to get a PM out who doesn't want to go.
Once Corbyn is enabled into Downing Street, the polls will move strongly and decisively toward the Conservatives who will clamour for an early election. To re-iterate, there are plenty of people who, whatever they may think about how bad a No Deal Brexit will be, regard the prospect of a Corbyn Government as infinitely worse (that's my circle, not a WhatsApp group) and would support even a No Deal Conservative and run a mile from the LDs and anyone else enabling Corbyn into Downing Street.
Were it a centrist Labour figure, it would be different but it's not - it's Jeremy Corbyn and being the socialist revolutionary he is, he and those around him would do anything to prolong their time in No.10.
No, Jo has called this right - Corbyn needs to stand aside and allow Harman or Clarke to lead the GoNU and give the greatest chance of gaining the widest range of support in the Commons and the country.
If Boris Johnson can be PM then anybody can. I am by no means a Corbyn fan boy - I voted against him as Labour leader on both occasions - but I struggle to see why he is less suited to the role than the current occupant.
BoZo doesn't want to scrap Trident.
Also - where is he going to keep his lovely missiles if he forces Scotland out of the Union?
They are going to have to go NSB Kings Bay with the US boomers - if President Warren says yes.
In theory England could lease HNMB Clyde back from Scotland but I doubt President Sturgeon is going want MoD Plod driving the "physics package" up and down the M6.
Yes, purge. If the hardcore Remainers bring down the government they will be purged. That's what happens when you bring down your own government.
It will be sad to see @HYUFD thrown or of the Conservative Party.
Not to me, he's a bit of a crank
J/K. Actually the article quoted says that arch-Remainers will have to reconcile themselves to leaving and accept that like Amber Rudd has done, or be purged. HYUFD was a trailblazer for Rudd so he'll be fine.
He is a man of principle. As a hardcore remainer he'll struggle.
I know that presses his buttons and its easy to wind him up with that, but I'm not going to engage any further on that. Good luck winding him up though.
1. That Johnson has stronger principles than Corbyn (not necessarily saying that as a compliment to Corbyn).
2. That people wouldn't trust either leader with their kids. Really? I mean, I know it's one of those things people say, but what do you think is going to happen? Nice afternoon at the allotment with Grandpa Jezza, or a morning on the bouncy castle with Uncle Boris... what's not to like?
Until quite recently the liberal position was that there are no conspiracies – none, at any rate, of any historical importance. History consisted of long periods of chaos and stupidity, with occasional intervals when rational figures such as themselves were in power. Over time, reason would become ever stronger and the power of liberals would become unchallengeable. Heading all mainstream parties, liberals believed history was a gradual process of incremental improvement. Whether what they desired was a better kind of capitalism or some modernised version of social democracy, they looked forward to the continuing advance of reason – led, of course, by themselves. Though not strictly inevitable, this process was in the long run unstoppable. Even if dark forces were scheming to block the advance of progress, they were bound to fail.
A different liberal view has become influential in the last few years. The election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the advance of populism have shaken the faith in reason, and liberals have invoked concealed forces to explain an ongoing shift in politics that does not square with their view of history. A conspiratorial mindset is now common among bien-pensants who only two or three summers ago would have regarded the idea that politics is shaped by covert actors as a sick fantasy. In this new liberal world-view, progress has not just stalled. It is being wilfully undermined and reversed by clandestine means......
This is why liberals find conspiracy theory attractive. It serves to exonerate them from responsibility for what has gone wrong. Supported by liberals in all parties, a decade of austerity produced cuts in public services and infrastructure that damaged much of the British population. Liberals in all parties also promoted large-scale immigration. Anyone who suggested it might have costs as well as benefits, especially for the working poor, was denounced as racist. The rise of Ukip, and then of the Brexit Party, was the predictable result. Populism is the creation of a liberal political class that blames its decline on the stupidity of voters. If the liberal idea is dead, as Vladimir Putin has claimed, it is liberals who have acted as his useful idiots and killed it.
WTF at 38% thinking Corbyn doesn't have strong principles?
He has the wrong principles IMO, but he absolutely has strong ones. Not over Brexit, but over other stuff absolutely.
Voted against welfare cuts, defying the party whip, to show he was a man of principle, which won him the leadership.
Said he would keep all those welfare cuts in order to pay for free school meals and university tuition for millionaires, in order to become Prime Minister.
1. That Johnson has stronger principles than Corbyn (not necessarily saying that as a compliment to Corbyn).
2. That people wouldn't trust either leader with their kids. Really? I mean, I know it's one of those things people say, but what do you think is going to happen? Nice afternoon at the allotment with Grandpa Jezza, or a morning on the bouncy castle with Uncle Boris... what's not to like?
It's like interviewer asks politician "Y-fronts or boxers?"
No, Jo has called this right - Corbyn needs to stand aside and allow Harman or Clarke to lead the GoNU and give the greatest chance of gaining the widest range of support in the Commons and the country.
This comes down to Realpolitik.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Swinson does not have the numbers to demand anything.
1. That Johnson has stronger principles than Corbyn (not necessarily saying that as a compliment to Corbyn).
2. That people wouldn't trust either leader with their kids. Really? I mean, I know it's one of those things people say, but what do you think is going to happen? Nice afternoon at the allotment with Grandpa Jezza, or a morning on the bouncy castle with Uncle Boris... what's not to like?
The amazing thing is that both of them have at least some positive numbers.
No, Jo has called this right - Corbyn needs to stand aside and allow Harman or Clarke to lead the GoNU and give the greatest chance of gaining the widest range of support in the Commons and the country.
This comes down to Realpolitik.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Swinson does not have the numbers to demand anything.
End of argument.
But nor does Corbyn. That's the issue. He needs the support of every other political party to become PM including at least some Tory or DUP, and he can't even reliably deliver his own backbenchers.
No, Jo has called this right - Corbyn needs to stand aside and allow Harman or Clarke to lead the GoNU and give the greatest chance of gaining the widest range of support in the Commons and the country.
This comes down to Realpolitik.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Swinson does not have the numbers to demand anything.
End of argument.
This comes down to Realpolitik. There are 643 MPs in Parliament, 322 [including Speaker as a Tory, deputy speakers as their own parties] are needed for a majority.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Neither party can do it on their own. Both need each other or they fail.
Until quite recently the liberal position was that there are no conspiracies – none, at any rate, of any historical importance. History consisted of long periods of chaos and stupidity, with occasional intervals when rational figures such as themselves were in power. Over time, reason would become ever stronger and the power of liberals would become unchallengeable. Heading all mainstream parties, liberals believed history was a gradual process of incremental improvement. Whether what they desired was a better kind of capitalism or some modernised version of social democracy, they looked forward to the continuing advance of reason – led, of course, by themselves. Though not strictly inevitable, this process was in the long run unstoppable. Even if dark forces were scheming to block the advance of progress, they were bound to fail.
A different liberal view has become influential in the last few years. The election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the advance of populism have shaken the faith in reason, and liberals have invoked concealed forces to explain an ongoing shift in politics that does not square with their view of history. A conspiratorial mindset is now common among bien-pensants who only two or three summers ago would have regarded the idea that politics is shaped by covert actors as a sick fantasy. In this new liberal world-view, progress has not just stalled. It is being wilfully undermined and reversed by clandestine means......
This is why liberals find conspiracy theory attractive. It serves to exonerate them from responsibility for what has gone wrong. Supported by liberals in all parties, a decade of austerity produced cuts in public services and infrastructure that damaged much of the British population. Liberals in all parties also promoted large-scale immigration. Anyone who suggested it might have costs as well as benefits, especially for the working poor, was denounced as racist. The rise of Ukip, and then of the Brexit Party, was the predictable result. Populism is the creation of a liberal political class that blames its decline on the stupidity of voters. If the liberal idea is dead, as Vladimir Putin has claimed, it is liberals who have acted as his useful idiots and killed it.
I think 'liberals' in 'why liberals now believe conspiracies' could easily be replaced with 'lots of people of differing outlooks'. The view that there's an overarching & homogenised liberal view that has been fashioning the world & society in its own image might itself be described as a conspiracy theory..
I think 'liberals' in 'why liberals now believe conspiracies' could easily be replaced with 'lots of people of differing outlooks'. The view that there's an overarching & homogenised liberal view that has been fashioning the world & society in its own image might itself be described as a conspiracy theory..
It also misses the fact a lot of liberals, like myself, voted for Brexit. A lot of illiberals, like May, voted to Remain.
Most of UK jobs outside London are low value ones in basic service industries. We have smart graduates working in call centres taking home less than £20k a year.
Yet recruitment of 'smart graduates' for engineering jobs at £25k or £30k is far from easy.
Its yet another thing which makes me suspect that much of UK higher education is not fit for purpose.
An awful lot of graduate recruitment is no more sophisticated than checking an applicant's alma mater. The reason a degree from Scumbag College is worth less than the same degree from Footlights College Oxbridge is the brand, not because the teaching is worse or they use a different speed of light in their physics equations.
My experience is that especially in engineering quality of teaching is poor even from top universities. Science is a bit better but not great. The capacity and work effort of many graduates however is good and with some training they can become productive quickly
One company owner told me he favoured chemistry graduates for any role because of the strong work ethic inculcated by having to perform and write up four experiments every week for three years.
1. That Johnson has stronger principles than Corbyn (not necessarily saying that as a compliment to Corbyn).
2. That people wouldn't trust either leader with their kids. Really? I mean, I know it's one of those things people say, but what do you think is going to happen? Nice afternoon at the allotment with Grandpa Jezza, or a morning on the bouncy castle with Uncle Boris... what's not to like?
Are you kidding?
Boris is the kind of person who would pass your kids onto someone else to deal with if it became too onerous or boring for him to deal with. They could end up anywhere, with anyone.
Whereas Corbyn is the sort of person who would decide to do something you didn't approve of with your children, but he thought it was fine and didn't think to check with you whether you were comfortable with it.
1. That Johnson has stronger principles than Corbyn (not necessarily saying that as a compliment to Corbyn).
2. That people wouldn't trust either leader with their kids. Really? I mean, I know it's one of those things people say, but what do you think is going to happen? Nice afternoon at the allotment with Grandpa Jezza, or a morning on the bouncy castle with Uncle Boris... what's not to like?
It's like interviewer asks politician "Y-fronts or boxers?"
Or what biscuits they like, which famously stumped Gordon Brown on Mumsnet.
No, Jo has called this right - Corbyn needs to stand aside and allow Harman or Clarke to lead the GoNU and give the greatest chance of gaining the widest range of support in the Commons and the country.
This comes down to Realpolitik.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Swinson does not have the numbers to demand anything.
End of argument.
But nor does Corbyn. That's the issue. He needs the support of every other political party to become PM including at least some Tory or DUP, and he can't even reliably deliver his own backbenchers.
Corby wil not budge.
If blocking No Deal is so important, then it is perfectly reasonable to ask for MPs to install the Leader of HM Opposition.
Corby just needs to make sure there is no too much blame attached to him when it collapses. He is pretty good at avoiding blame.
This whole process from the Referendum onward has been bedevilled by MPs thinking that they can pick their favourite, fluffiest unicorn from the flock.
You don't get to choose your unicorn. The only one available is a slightly scruffy, bearded unicorn on an allotment with a curious interest in East Germany.
But the problem with this argument is that it depends on hypotheses about how voters might behave at a future general election. You may well be right of course, but it is impossible to be sure, and, as we all know, the generally-accepted hypotheses that led to the 2017 general election proved to be completely wrong.
If Swinson is so convinced that Corbyn cannot get a majority in the Commons she should offer to support him in return for a commitment that he will support someone else if he does not win. This would put him on the spot and also rebuild the Lib Dems position as a party that is focused on avoiding no deal.
Anecdotally the comments on my local anti-Brexit whatsapp group last night were not complimentary about Swinson.
The antipathy to Corbyn among those not inclined to Labour (and indeed among some inclined to vote Labour) seems pretty real to this observer. The other aspect is Corbyn isn't the kind who, once his foot in the door, is going to let go. We've seen with May how difficult it is to get a PM out who doesn't want to go.
Once Corbyn is enabled into Downing Street, the polls will move strongly and decisively toward the Conservatives who will clamour for an early election. To re-iterate, there are plenty of people who, whatever they may think about how bad a No Deal Brexit will be, regard the prospect of a Corbyn Government as infinitely worse (that's my circle, not a WhatsApp group) and would support even a No Deal Conservative and run a mile from the LDs and anyone else enabling Corbyn into Downing Street.
Were it a centrist Labour figure, it would be different but it's not - it's Jeremy Corbyn and being the socialist revolutionary he is, he and those around him would do anything to prolong their time in No.10.
No, Jo has called this right - Corbyn needs to stand aside and allow Harman or Clarke to lead the GoNU and give the greatest chance of gaining the widest range of support in the Commons and the country.
The problem with this is that only a few weeks ago some were complaining that Boris became PM only having been elected by 150k Con members. Someone like Harman would have no legitimacy at all. I don't think it will happen, but if it did it would look like a parliamentary coup.
No, Jo has called this right - Corbyn needs to stand aside and allow Harman or Clarke to lead the GoNU and give the greatest chance of gaining the widest range of support in the Commons and the country.
This comes down to Realpolitik.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Swinson does not have the numbers to demand anything.
End of argument.
This comes down to Realpolitik. There are 643 MPs in Parliament, 322 [including Speaker as a Tory, deputy speakers as their own parties] are needed for a majority.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Neither party can do it on their own. Both need each other or they fail.
End of argument.
Williamson and Hopkins would vote with Labour - as did Field in the January VNOC.SNP , Plaid & Green would support him . That gives 290 MPs. LibDems on board would take that to 304. Bebb and Philip Lee maybe pushes that to 306. Key votes would then be ChangeUK and Independent group who both have 5 MPs.
No, Jo has called this right - Corbyn needs to stand aside and allow Harman or Clarke to lead the GoNU and give the greatest chance of gaining the widest range of support in the Commons and the country.
This comes down to Realpolitik.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Swinson does not have the numbers to demand anything.
End of argument.
This comes down to Realpolitik. There are 643 MPs in Parliament, 322 [including Speaker as a Tory, deputy speakers as their own parties] are needed for a majority.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Neither party can do it on their own. Both need each other or they fail.
End of argument.
Williamson and Hopkins would vote with Labour - as did Field in the January VNOC.SNP , Plaid & Green would support him . That gives 290 MPs. LibDems on board would take that to 304. Bebb and Philip Lee maybe pushes that to 306. Key votes would then be ChangeUK and Independent group who both have 5 MPs.
1. That Johnson has stronger principles than Corbyn (not necessarily saying that as a compliment to Corbyn).
2. That people wouldn't trust either leader with their kids. Really? I mean, I know it's one of those things people say, but what do you think is going to happen? Nice afternoon at the allotment with Grandpa Jezza, or a morning on the bouncy castle with Uncle Boris... what's not to like?
Are you kidding?
Boris is the kind of person who would pass your kids onto someone else to deal with if it became too onerous or boring for him to deal with. They could end up anywhere, with anyone.
Whereas Corbyn is the sort of person who would decide to do something you didn't approve of with your children, but he thought it was fine and didn't think to check with you whether you were comfortable with it.
Oh, come on. That's strained. I'm afraid it's typical of political discussion now. It isn't enough to disagree with person X. People feel the need to demonstrate their purity by claiming X is a fundamentally bad person.
He's heard lots of people saying he loses if the economy goes down the tubes and just rebranded it a little.
I didn’t have him down as a student of HL Mencken... “No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
No, Jo has called this right - Corbyn needs to stand aside and allow Harman or Clarke to lead the GoNU and give the greatest chance of gaining the widest range of support in the Commons and the country.
This comes down to Realpolitik.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Swinson does not have the numbers to demand anything.
End of argument.
This comes down to Realpolitik. There are 643 MPs in Parliament, 322 [including Speaker as a Tory, deputy speakers as their own parties] are needed for a majority.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Neither party can do it on their own. Both need each other or they fail.
End of argument.
Williamson and Hopkins would vote with Labour - as did Field in the January VNOC.SNP , Plaid & Green would support him . That gives 290 MPs. LibDems on board would take that to 304. Bebb and Philip Lee maybe pushes that to 306. Key votes would then be ChangeUK and Independent group who both have 5 MPs.
With how many against?
More important, how many will abstain?
Abstaining is good for an MP about to face an general election because whatever disaster ensues, you can legitimately claim not to have voted for it.
1. That Johnson has stronger principles than Corbyn (not necessarily saying that as a compliment to Corbyn).
2. That people wouldn't trust either leader with their kids. Really? I mean, I know it's one of those things people say, but what do you think is going to happen? Nice afternoon at the allotment with Grandpa Jezza, or a morning on the bouncy castle with Uncle Boris... what's not to like?
Are you kidding?
Boris is the kind of person who would pass your kids onto someone else to deal with if it became too onerous or boring for him to deal with. They could end up anywhere, with anyone.
Whereas Corbyn is the sort of person who would decide to do something you didn't approve of with your children, but he thought it was fine and didn't think to check with you whether you were comfortable with it.
Oh, come on. That's strained. I'm afraid it's typical of political discussion now. It isn't enough to disagree with person X. People feel the need to demonstrate their purity by claiming X is a fundamentally bad person.
The problem with this is that only a few weeks ago some were complaining that Boris became PM only having been elected by 150k Con members. Someone like Harman would have no legitimacy at all. I don't think it will happen, but if it did it would look like a parliamentary coup.
That is what we need. The crisis approaches and it is the Tories and Corbyn who are causing it.
No, Jo has called this right - Corbyn needs to stand aside and allow Harman or Clarke to lead the GoNU and give the greatest chance of gaining the widest range of support in the Commons and the country.
This comes down to Realpolitik.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Swinson does not have the numbers to demand anything.
End of argument.
This comes down to Realpolitik. There are 643 MPs in Parliament, 322 [including Speaker as a Tory, deputy speakers as their own parties] are needed for a majority.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Neither party can do it on their own. Both need each other or they fail.
End of argument.
Williamson and Hopkins would vote with Labour - as did Field in the January VNOC.SNP , Plaid & Green would support him . That gives 290 MPs. LibDems on board would take that to 304. Bebb and Philip Lee maybe pushes that to 306. Key votes would then be ChangeUK and Independent group who both have 5 MPs.
Corbyn decided not to copy ChangeUK in, and several of those people believe viscerally that Corbyn himself is a facilitator of antisemitism at the very least. That's one reason why he simply isn't a credible caretaker.
Additionally, it's very different VONCing Johnson and VOCing Corbyn.
The purging bit is going very well. Not so sure about the rest.
As someone who purged herself I'm curious why Heidi objects to the word?
The use of "purge" in political history has deeply unpleasant and indeed bloody undertones.
And Heidi Allen presumably regrets that political parties are evolving from broad churches into sects, as do I.
Judging by his comment, Philip is down with the project.
I'm less interested in the purges, and more interested in the show trials that should follow any no deal Brexit and the premeditated damage it will cause the country.
Isn't the answer to the JC as PM question to just take over the timetable to extend Brexit before doing so for a VONC? Or does the VONC have priority?
I assume any VONC before legislation extending Brexit deadline won't get LD / CHUK support because they don't trust a JC gov to give a people's vote, and they don't want PM JC, but I also assume a Brexit deadline extension before a VONC is unacceptable to JC because then why do LDs need to VONC the gov...
Even if people think JC is unfit (as many people think Boris is) do they not understand he is the democratically elected leader of a party that was democratically elected as the opposition? He may be shit, but if they want to VONC the government to prevent a no deal before a GE is called, they have to accept the hand the electorate dealt them. People voted for Labour knowing JC was in charge (unlike Boris), so at least some of them were willing to see him as LOTO and potentially PM.
The problem with this is that only a few weeks ago some were complaining that Boris became PM only having been elected by 150k Con members. Someone like Harman would have no legitimacy at all. I don't think it will happen, but if it did it would look like a parliamentary coup.
That is what we need. The crisis approaches and it is the Tories and Corbyn who are causing it.
Note that I said "Corbyn" and not "Labour"
Not sure there is such a thing as a "parliamentary coup". In our system the executive only govern because they have the confidence of the HoC.
The purging bit is going very well. Not so sure about the rest.
As someone who purged herself I'm curious why Heidi objects to the word?
The use of "purge" in political history has deeply unpleasant and indeed bloody undertones.
And Heidi Allen presumably regrets that political parties are evolving from broad churches into sects, as do I.
Judging by his comment, Philip is down with the project.
Just because a word occassionally has bloody undertones in the past doesn't mean it is a word that has no meaning or appropriate uses. It is appropriate here.
I'm fine with parties having principles and people who can't agree to those principles going to other parties, yes. The Tory Party agreed to respect the referendum result, anyone who isn't prepared to do that [which doesn't mean Rudd or HYUFD for Topping's benefit] should go. Had the result been Remain and had Francois still been causing nuisance I'd have said the same for him too.
If there was a group of MPs campaigning hardcore to abolish the NHS and bring in American healthcare I'd be OK with them being purged because they're not aligned with the parties principles. I imagine that Labour Party voters would think the same about any MPs in the Labour Party campaigning hardcore to abolish the NHS.
No, Jo has called this right - Corbyn needs to stand aside and allow Harman or Clarke to lead the GoNU and give the greatest chance of gaining the widest range of support in the Commons and the country.
This comes down to Realpolitik.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Swinson does not have the numbers to demand anything.
End of argument.
This comes down to Realpolitik. There are 643 MPs in Parliament, 322 [including Speaker as a Tory, deputy speakers as their own parties] are needed for a majority.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Neither party can do it on their own. Both need each other or they fail.
End of argument.
Williamson and Hopkins would vote with Labour - as did Field in the January VNOC.SNP , Plaid & Green would support him . That gives 290 MPs. LibDems on board would take that to 304. Bebb and Philip Lee maybe pushes that to 306. Key votes would then be ChangeUK and Independent group who both have 5 MPs.
Yes, but that requires the Lib Dems on board.
YBarddCwsc claimed Realpolitik meant that Swinson doesn't have the numbers to demand anything, fact is she does. Without Swinson, there is no majority, that is all the numbers she needs.
The purging bit is going very well. Not so sure about the rest.
As someone who purged herself I'm curious why Heidi objects to the word?
The use of "purge" in political history has deeply unpleasant and indeed bloody undertones.
And Heidi Allen presumably regrets that political parties are evolving from broad churches into sects, as do I.
Judging by his comment, Philip is down with the project.
Just because a word occassionally has bloody undertones in the past doesn't mean it is a word that has no meaning or appropriate uses. It is appropriate here.
I'm fine with parties having principles and people who can't agree to those principles going to other parties, yes. The Tory Party agreed to respect the referendum result, anyone who isn't prepared to do that [which doesn't mean Rudd or HYUFD for Topping's benefit] should go. Had the result been Remain and had Francois still been causing nuisance I'd have said the same for him too.
If there was a group of MPs campaigning hardcore to abolish the NHS and bring in American healthcare I'd be OK with them being purged because they're not aligned with the parties principles. I imagine that Labour Party voters would think the same about any MPs in the Labour Party campaigning hardcore to abolish the NHS.
Except in this case, the issue is one which cuts across party lines, and previously the Tory party has not been an ideological party, tolerating several mutually contradictory sets of beliefs.
Purge, even divorced from its more than occasionally bloody past, as a political term is inextricably bound up with ideology.
Looks like "temporary PM" Corbyn is dead in the water as a plan.
A less personalised principle, which I’m disappointed Swinson et al haven’t arrived at, is that no one who aspires to occupy the office on a permanent basis is qualified to be picked as a ‘temporary PM’.
The purging bit is going very well. Not so sure about the rest.
As someone who purged herself I'm curious why Heidi objects to the word?
The use of "purge" in political history has deeply unpleasant and indeed bloody undertones.
And Heidi Allen presumably regrets that political parties are evolving from broad churches into sects, as do I.
Judging by his comment, Philip is down with the project.
Just because a word occassionally has bloody undertones in the past doesn't mean it is a word that has no meaning or appropriate uses. It is appropriate here.
I'm fine with parties having principles and people who can't agree to those principles going to other parties, yes. The Tory Party agreed to respect the referendum result, anyone who isn't prepared to do that [which doesn't mean Rudd or HYUFD for Topping's benefit] should go. Had the result been Remain and had Francois still been causing nuisance I'd have said the same for him too.
If there was a group of MPs campaigning hardcore to abolish the NHS and bring in American healthcare I'd be OK with them being purged because they're not aligned with the parties principles. I imagine that Labour Party voters would think the same about any MPs in the Labour Party campaigning hardcore to abolish the NHS.
Except in this case, the issue is one which cuts across party lines, and previously the Tory party has not been an ideological party, tolerating several mutually contradictory sets of beliefs.
Purge, even divorced from its more than occasionally bloody past, as a political term is inextricably bound up with ideology.
You are wrong.
The Tory Party in 1993 made it an ideological issue. Major made passing Maastricht a Confidence motion, any MP who was not willing to vote through Maastricht would have been expelled from the Party. IDS and all the other "bastards" of the time held their nose and voted for Maastricht, despite hating it.
The shoe is on the other foot now, but there is no difference between today and then. This is now a matter of Confidence, if you can't toe the party line you will be expelled - as any MP who voted against Maastricht in 1993 once Major made it a Confidence matter would have been.
No, Jo has called this right - Corbyn needs to stand aside and allow Harman or Clarke to lead the GoNU and give the greatest chance of gaining the widest range of support in the Commons and the country.
This comes down to Realpolitik.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Swinson does not have the numbers to demand anything.
End of argument.
This comes down to Realpolitik. There are 643 MPs in Parliament, 322 [including Speaker as a Tory, deputy speakers as their own parties] are needed for a majority.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Neither party can do it on their own. Both need each other or they fail.
End of argument.
Williamson and Hopkins would vote with Labour - as did Field in the January VNOC.SNP , Plaid & Green would support him . That gives 290 MPs. LibDems on board would take that to 304. Bebb and Philip Lee maybe pushes that to 306. Key votes would then be ChangeUK and Independent group who both have 5 MPs.
Corbyn decided not to copy ChangeUK in, and several of those people believe viscerally that Corbyn himself is a facilitator of antisemitism at the very least. That's one reason why he simply isn't a credible caretaker.
Additionally, it's very different VONCing Johnson and VOCing Corbyn.
I totally agree with your last point - having made it myself yesterday!
I mean, LDs can always VONC Tories to prevent no deal and then VONC JC to get a GE. It makes them look bad, but it works...
The issue with that is that Boris remains PM until the GE. that works into the tories hands fine.
My thought process was this:
1) VONC Tories 2) Allow PM Corbyn 3) Allow one action by JC - extending Brexit deadline 4) Either allow JC to call GE on own terms or VONC him if he refuses 5a) GE is called by JC - unleash the dogs of war 5b) No gov can be formed in 14 days, so default is GE - unleash the dogs of war
NB: It would be a bad look for JC to be VONCd so I assume he'd call a GE before a VONC went through if he'd already extended Brexit deadline - I assume BJ would try and call a GE before a VONC so deadline cannot be extended (so if I were Lab or LD I would refuse to vote for a GE over a VONC until BJ extended Brexit deadline)
I mean, LDs can always VONC Tories to prevent no deal and then VONC JC to get a GE. It makes them look bad, but it works...
Which date does the VONC need to take place in order for the GE to be before October 31st though ?
13th or 14th September.
That's not right is it?
A VONC on 14 September can still be a GE afterwards if Boris chooses a date afterwards. Unless an extension is agreed but then its moot, that can occur even in October.
If Boris Johnson can be PM then anybody can. I am by no means a Corbyn fan boy - I voted against him as Labour leader on both occasions - but I struggle to see why he is less suited to the role than the current occupant.
BoZo doesn't want to scrap Trident.
Also - where is he going to keep his lovely missiles if he forces Scotland out of the Union?
They are going to have to go NSB Kings Bay with the US boomers - if President Warren says yes.
In theory England could lease HNMB Clyde back from Scotland but I doubt President Sturgeon is going want MoD Plod driving the "physics package" up and down the M6.
A deal to rent them out for 10 years or so would be a certainty
If both Clarke and Harman are willing (and have the numbers) to be PM, who stands down?
I wonder if we might get the PM determined by drawing straws or tossing a coin.
I very much doubt either have the numbers, as Corbyn will scupper it.
Harman is most credible of those two - there are enough Labour (and possibly SNP) MPs who don't want "supporting a Tory PM" (even Clarke and even for special reasons) on their CVs. The number of Tories needing to be held together to make Harman PM is far smaller.
I mean, LDs can always VONC Tories to prevent no deal and then VONC JC to get a GE. It makes them look bad, but it works...
The issue with that is that Boris remains PM until the GE. that works into the tories hands fine.
My thought process was this:
1) VONC Tories 2) Allow PM Corbyn 3) Allow one action by JC - extending Brexit deadline 4) Either allow JC to call GE on own terms or VONC him if he refuses 5a) GE is called by JC - unleash the dogs of war 5b) No gov can be formed in 14 days, so default is GE - unleash the dogs of war
NB: It would be a bad look for JC to be VONCd so I assume he'd call a GE before a VONC went through if he'd already extended Brexit deadline - I assume BJ would try and call a GE before a VONC so deadline cannot be extended (so if I were Lab or LD I would refuse to vote for a GE over a VONC until BJ extended Brexit deadline)
Corbyn would still be in Downing Street and controlling executive actions for 2 whole months in that scenario.
If both Clarke and Harman are willing (and have the numbers) to be PM, who stands down?
I wonder if we might get the PM determined by drawing straws or tossing a coin.
I very much doubt either have the numbers, as Corbyn will scupper it.
Harman is most credible of those two - there are enough Labour (and possibly SNP) MPs who don't want "supporting a Tory PM" (even Clarke and even for special reasons) on their CVs. The number of Tories needing to be held together to make Harman PM is far smaller.
If Corbyn backed Harman I think Grieve would be prepared to back Harman.
Corbyn won't though. We see PMs refuse to promote rivals, the notion of someone as petty and ideological as Corbyn promoting an arch-rival for leadership of the Labour Party to being Prime Minister is utterly unthinkable. He will never do that.
I said for a long time here now that Jeremy Corbyn was only going to back Jeremy Corbyn to be PM.
Now it seems some are shocked that Jeremy Corbyn is only prepared to back Jeremy Corbyn to be PM.
Really!? Really!? It was blindingly obvious!
We will soon see I guess. I reckon he'll be okay with someone Labour with a mandate to get an extension and a GE.
Why? Do you think he genuinely wants someone else to get an extension and a GE?
I think his order of preference will be:
1: He is made PM, gets an extension and a GE. 2: No Deal followed by GE, he is blameless for No Deal. 3: Someone else gets an extension and then a GE. 4: No Deal with him blamed.
If he can avoid getting the blame, then he's not genuinely opposed to No Deal. I think with this offer now he has done enough not to be blamed by anyone minded to support Labour in any future GE. Anyone minded to vote Labour will say it was other politicians fault for not being willing to back Corbyn, so the solution is to vote Labour.
Yes. 2 and 3 are the wrong way round and there's considerable clear water between them. Ultimately he wants to be PM, transform Britain etc. That's not going to happen as a caretaker with a majority of minus 10. It requires a general election.
As for No Deal, he knows he will be blamed for it regardless, it will spark another leadership challenge, lead to further defections etc. etc. Plus it will put off an election for a long time. Plus he believes it will actually be very damaging!
I have a feeling that as the GNU debate develops, the Corbyn letter that yesterday seemed so smart to me and many others might turn out to have been a major error. It's interesting that, yet again, Keir Starmer does not seem to be around for a Corbyn Brexit trip off-piste.
I mean, LDs can always VONC Tories to prevent no deal and then VONC JC to get a GE. It makes them look bad, but it works...
Which date does the VONC need to take place in order for the GE to be before October 31st though ?
13th or 14th September.
That's not right is it?
A VONC on 14 September can still be a GE afterwards if Boris chooses a date afterwards. Unless an extension is agreed but then its moot, that can occur even in October.
I assumed Pulpstar was referring to the latest date for a VONC that will allow a GE before 31st October. That is 14 days for failing to fnd an alternative and then 25 working days or about 33 calendar days for the campaign.
No, Jo has called this right - Corbyn needs to stand aside and allow Harman or Clarke to lead the GoNU and give the greatest chance of gaining the widest range of support in the Commons and the country.
This comes down to Realpolitik.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Swinson does not have the numbers to demand anything.
End of argument.
This comes down to Realpolitik. There are 643 MPs in Parliament, 322 [including Speaker as a Tory, deputy speakers as their own parties] are needed for a majority.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Neither party can do it on their own. Both need each other or they fail.
End of argument.
Williamson and Hopkins would vote with Labour - as did Field in the January VNOC.SNP , Plaid & Green would support him . That gives 290 MPs. LibDems on board would take that to 304. Bebb and Philip Lee maybe pushes that to 306. Key votes would then be ChangeUK and Independent group who both have 5 MPs.
Yes, but that requires the Lib Dems on board.
YBarddCwsc claimed Realpolitik meant that Swinson doesn't have the numbers to demand anything, fact is she does. Without Swinson, there is no majority, that is all the numbers she needs.
Also would O'Mara be there to vote? Then there is the former LD MP for Eastbourne now sitting as an Independent.
Awful. Sounds as if there is more to come out from that story as the facts are very odd - presumably a fake burglary call to lure a police officer for some purpose, and the location is near a major Police training centre.
If both Clarke and Harman are willing (and have the numbers) to be PM, who stands down?
I wonder if we might get the PM determined by drawing straws or tossing a coin.
I very much doubt either have the numbers, as Corbyn will scupper it.
Harman is most credible of those two - there are enough Labour (and possibly SNP) MPs who don't want "supporting a Tory PM" (even Clarke and even for special reasons) on their CVs. The number of Tories needing to be held together to make Harman PM is far smaller.
If Corbyn backed Harman I think Grieve would be prepared to back Harman.
Corbyn won't though. We see PMs refuse to promote rivals, the notion of someone as petty and ideological as Corbyn promoting an arch-rival for leadership of the Labour Party to being Prime Minister is utterly unthinkable. He will never do that.
It's one reason why I suspect we end up with Beckett - who Corbyn could support as she put him where he is.
What I suspect we will end up with is:-
VoNC Boris Corbyn comes in VoNC Corbyn someone else
General election although a second referendum to put things to bed would be a far saner idea.
Mr. Observer, depends. If Corbyn wants us to leave, and for no deal, and for the Conservatives to pay an electoral price, whilst looking like he can claim he wanted to remain, the letter's rather clever.
Awful. Sounds as if there is more to come out from that story as the facts are very odd - presumably a fake burglary call to lure a police officer for some purpose, and the location is near a major Police training centre.
The purging bit is going very well. Not so sure about the rest.
As someone who purged herself I'm curious why Heidi objects to the word?
The use of "purge" in political history has deeply unpleasant and indeed bloody undertones.
And Heidi Allen presumably regrets that political parties are evolving from broad churches into sects, as do I.
Judging by his comment, Philip is down with the project.
I'm less interested in the purges, and more interested in the show trials that should follow any no deal Brexit and the premeditated damage it will cause the country.
Who will be first against the wall when the Revolution comes?
I mean, LDs can always VONC Tories to prevent no deal and then VONC JC to get a GE. It makes them look bad, but it works...
Which date does the VONC need to take place in order for the GE to be before October 31st though ?
13th or 14th September.
That's not right is it?
A VONC on 14 September can still be a GE afterwards if Boris chooses a date afterwards. Unless an extension is agreed but then its moot, that can occur even in October.
I assumed Pulpstar was referring to the latest date for a VONC that will allow a GE before 31st October. That is 14 days for failing to fnd an alternative and then 25 working days or about 33 calendar days for the campaign.
I assumed he meant to ensure it will be. That date has already passed.
Though I think even theoretically 13th is too late. Don't forget we need to hold the election before the 31st, have the votes counted and a new PM kiss hands with the Queen prior to the 31st.
I mean, LDs can always VONC Tories to prevent no deal and then VONC JC to get a GE. It makes them look bad, but it works...
The issue with that is that Boris remains PM until the GE. that works into the tories hands fine.
My thought process was this:
1) VONC Tories 2) Allow PM Corbyn 3) Allow one action by JC - extending Brexit deadline 4) Either allow JC to call GE on own terms or VONC him if he refuses 5a) GE is called by JC - unleash the dogs of war 5b) No gov can be formed in 14 days, so default is GE - unleash the dogs of war
NB: It would be a bad look for JC to be VONCd so I assume he'd call a GE before a VONC went through if he'd already extended Brexit deadline - I assume BJ would try and call a GE before a VONC so deadline cannot be extended (so if I were Lab or LD I would refuse to vote for a GE over a VONC until BJ extended Brexit deadline)
Corbyn would still be in Downing Street and controlling executive actions for 2 whole months in that scenario.
I mean, he can't do anything in those 2 months. It takes 2 months to sort out what the hell everyone's portfolio is. There would be FA he could do.
Also, guess what, he is the LOTO, democratically elected by his party members to lead Labour alongside MPs democratically elected by their constituents. If MPs have no faith in the government, the LOTO has a right and duty to try and form a government. If the other parties don't like that, don't let him, but then they don't get deadline extended. Johnson has refused to extend the Brexit deadline. Labour has refused a GNU that replaces their democratically elected leader. LDs and other Remainers have to pick what they prefer.
If both Clarke and Harman are willing (and have the numbers) to be PM, who stands down?
I wonder if we might get the PM determined by drawing straws or tossing a coin.
I very much doubt either have the numbers, as Corbyn will scupper it.
Harman is most credible of those two - there are enough Labour (and possibly SNP) MPs who don't want "supporting a Tory PM" (even Clarke and even for special reasons) on their CVs. The number of Tories needing to be held together to make Harman PM is far smaller.
If Corbyn backed Harman I think Grieve would be prepared to back Harman.
Corbyn won't though. We see PMs refuse to promote rivals, the notion of someone as petty and ideological as Corbyn promoting an arch-rival for leadership of the Labour Party to being Prime Minister is utterly unthinkable. He will never do that.
It's one reason why I suspect we end up with Beckett - who Corbyn could support as she put him where he is.
What I suspect we will end up with is:-
VoNC Boris Corbyn comes in VoNC Corbyn someone else
General election although a second referendum to put things to bed would be a far saner idea.
Corbyn doesn't come in unless a majority agrees for him to go in though. Boris won't resign until a majority agrees to support Corbyn and that isn't happening yet.
Comments
He has the wrong principles IMO, but he absolutely has strong ones. Not over Brexit, but over other stuff absolutely.
J/K. Actually the article quoted says that arch-Remainers will have to reconcile themselves to leaving and accept that like Amber Rudd has done, or be purged. HYUFD was a trailblazer for Rudd so he'll be fine.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2638768
Theresa May was always absurd. She said "it is this deal or you risk no deal or no Brexit" every time, trying to threaten the no dealers with no Brexit while simultaneously threatening the no Brexiteers with no deal . . . but quite predictably the no dealers said "no deal then" and the no Brexiteers said "no Brexit then".
Once Corbyn is enabled into Downing Street, the polls will move strongly and decisively toward the Conservatives who will clamour for an early election. To re-iterate, there are plenty of people who, whatever they may think about how bad a No Deal Brexit will be, regard the prospect of a Corbyn Government as infinitely worse (that's my circle, not a WhatsApp group) and would support even a No Deal Conservative and run a mile from the LDs and anyone else enabling Corbyn into Downing Street.
Were it a centrist Labour figure, it would be different but it's not - it's Jeremy Corbyn and being the socialist revolutionary he is, he and those around him would do anything to prolong their time in No.10.
No, Jo has called this right - Corbyn needs to stand aside and allow Harman or Clarke to lead the GoNU and give the greatest chance of gaining the widest range of support in the Commons and the country.
In theory England could lease HNMB Clyde back from Scotland but I doubt President Sturgeon is going want MoD Plod driving the "physics package" up and down the M6.
1. That Johnson has stronger principles than Corbyn (not necessarily saying that as a compliment to Corbyn).
2. That people wouldn't trust either leader with their kids. Really? I mean, I know it's one of those things people say, but what do you think is going to happen? Nice afternoon at the allotment with Grandpa Jezza, or a morning on the bouncy castle with Uncle Boris... what's not to like?
Until quite recently the liberal position was that there are no conspiracies – none, at any rate, of any historical importance. History consisted of long periods of chaos and stupidity, with occasional intervals when rational figures such as themselves were in power. Over time, reason would become ever stronger and the power of liberals would become unchallengeable. Heading all mainstream parties, liberals believed history was a gradual process of incremental improvement. Whether what they desired was a better kind of capitalism or some modernised version of social democracy, they looked forward to the continuing advance of reason – led, of course, by themselves. Though not strictly inevitable, this process was in the long run unstoppable. Even if dark forces were scheming to block the advance of progress, they were bound to fail.
A different liberal view has become influential in the last few years. The election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the advance of populism have shaken the faith in reason, and liberals have invoked concealed forces to explain an ongoing shift in politics that does not square with their view of history. A conspiratorial mindset is now common among bien-pensants who only two or three summers ago would have regarded the idea that politics is shaped by covert actors as a sick fantasy. In this new liberal world-view, progress has not just stalled. It is being wilfully undermined and reversed by clandestine means......
This is why liberals find conspiracy theory attractive. It serves to exonerate them from responsibility for what has gone wrong. Supported by liberals in all parties, a decade of austerity produced cuts in public services and infrastructure that damaged much of the British population. Liberals in all parties also promoted large-scale immigration. Anyone who suggested it might have costs as well as benefits, especially for the working poor, was denounced as racist. The rise of Ukip, and then of the Brexit Party, was the predictable result. Populism is the creation of a liberal political class that blames its decline on the stupidity of voters. If the liberal idea is dead, as Vladimir Putin has claimed, it is liberals who have acted as his useful idiots and killed it.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/08/why-liberals-now-believe-conspiracies
Said he would keep all those welfare cuts in order to pay for free school meals and university tuition for millionaires, in order to become Prime Minister.
Obviously a man of iron principle.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Swinson does not have the numbers to demand anything.
End of argument.
There are 14 LD MPs. There are 247 Labour MPs.
Neither party can do it on their own. Both need each other or they fail.
End of argument.
Trump says economy will 'go down the tubes' if he loses
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/457633-trump-says-economy-will-go-down-the-tubes-if-he-loses
Boris is the kind of person who would pass your kids onto someone else to deal with if it became too onerous or boring for him to deal with. They could end up anywhere, with anyone.
Whereas Corbyn is the sort of person who would decide to do something you didn't approve of with your children, but he thought it was fine and didn't think to check with you whether you were comfortable with it.
"[The Tories would] be mad to refuse the gift that bond markets are offering."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/08/16/time-tories-become-party-big-infrastructure-spending/
If blocking No Deal is so important, then it is perfectly reasonable to ask for MPs to install the Leader of HM Opposition.
Corby just needs to make sure there is no too much blame attached to him when it collapses. He is pretty good at avoiding blame.
This whole process from the Referendum onward has been bedevilled by MPs thinking that they can pick their favourite, fluffiest unicorn from the flock.
You don't get to choose your unicorn. The only one available is a slightly scruffy, bearded unicorn on an allotment with a curious interest in East Germany.
And Heidi Allen presumably regrets that political parties are evolving from broad churches into sects, as do I.
“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
Abstaining is good for an MP about to face an general election because whatever disaster ensues, you can legitimately claim not to have voted for it.
Any action loses you votes, abstaining does not.
Note that I said "Corbyn" and not "Labour"
Additionally, it's very different VONCing Johnson and VOCing Corbyn.
But if the economy is strong it may look strong to the ignorant. If the argument is down the tubes already it will look like the BS that it is.
Make sense?
I assume any VONC before legislation extending Brexit deadline won't get LD / CHUK support because they don't trust a JC gov to give a people's vote, and they don't want PM JC, but I also assume a Brexit deadline extension before a VONC is unacceptable to JC because then why do LDs need to VONC the gov...
Even if people think JC is unfit (as many people think Boris is) do they not understand he is the democratically elected leader of a party that was democratically elected as the opposition? He may be shit, but if they want to VONC the government to prevent a no deal before a GE is called, they have to accept the hand the electorate dealt them. People voted for Labour knowing JC was in charge (unlike Boris), so at least some of them were willing to see him as LOTO and potentially PM.
I'm fine with parties having principles and people who can't agree to those principles going to other parties, yes. The Tory Party agreed to respect the referendum result, anyone who isn't prepared to do that [which doesn't mean Rudd or HYUFD for Topping's benefit] should go. Had the result been Remain and had Francois still been causing nuisance I'd have said the same for him too.
If there was a group of MPs campaigning hardcore to abolish the NHS and bring in American healthcare I'd be OK with them being purged because they're not aligned with the parties principles. I imagine that Labour Party voters would think the same about any MPs in the Labour Party campaigning hardcore to abolish the NHS.
YBarddCwsc claimed Realpolitik meant that Swinson doesn't have the numbers to demand anything, fact is she does. Without Swinson, there is no majority, that is all the numbers she needs.
Purge, even divorced from its more than occasionally bloody past, as a political term is inextricably bound up with ideology.
Corbyn won't back anyone else.
Everyone else won't back Corbyn.
First rule in politics is to know how to count.
I wonder if we might get the PM determined by drawing straws or tossing a coin.
The Tory Party in 1993 made it an ideological issue. Major made passing Maastricht a Confidence motion, any MP who was not willing to vote through Maastricht would have been expelled from the Party. IDS and all the other "bastards" of the time held their nose and voted for Maastricht, despite hating it.
The shoe is on the other foot now, but there is no difference between today and then. This is now a matter of Confidence, if you can't toe the party line you will be expelled - as any MP who voted against Maastricht in 1993 once Major made it a Confidence matter would have been.
1) VONC Tories
2) Allow PM Corbyn
3) Allow one action by JC - extending Brexit deadline
4) Either allow JC to call GE on own terms or VONC him if he refuses
5a) GE is called by JC - unleash the dogs of war
5b) No gov can be formed in 14 days, so default is GE - unleash the dogs of war
NB: It would be a bad look for JC to be VONCd so I assume he'd call a GE before a VONC went through if he'd already extended Brexit deadline - I assume BJ would try and call a GE before a VONC so deadline cannot be extended (so if I were Lab or LD I would refuse to vote for a GE over a VONC until BJ extended Brexit deadline)
A VONC on 14 September can still be a GE afterwards if Boris chooses a date afterwards. Unless an extension is agreed but then its moot, that can occur even in October.
Harman is most credible of those two - there are enough Labour (and possibly SNP) MPs who don't want "supporting a Tory PM" (even Clarke and even for special reasons) on their CVs. The number of Tories needing to be held together to make Harman PM is far smaller.
Now in comes Steve Smith.
I'd say something about him being nailed on to get another double if I didn't think the cheating low life probably will.
"Meatloaf Remainers" is such a great term!
Sad news.
Corbyn won't though. We see PMs refuse to promote rivals, the notion of someone as petty and ideological as Corbyn promoting an arch-rival for leadership of the Labour Party to being Prime Minister is utterly unthinkable. He will never do that.
Ultimately he wants to be PM, transform Britain etc. That's not going to happen as a caretaker with a majority of minus 10. It requires a general election.
As for No Deal, he knows he will be blamed for it regardless, it will spark another leadership challenge, lead to further defections etc. etc. Plus it will put off an election for a long time. Plus he believes it will actually be very damaging!
It's the hope that...
It would be ironic if the entire Tory party joined apart from (say) 46 ERG'ers
What I suspect we will end up with is:-
VoNC Boris
Corbyn comes in
VoNC Corbyn
someone else
General election
although a second referendum to put things to bed would be a far saner idea.
Though I think even theoretically 13th is too late. Don't forget we need to hold the election before the 31st, have the votes counted and a new PM kiss hands with the Queen prior to the 31st.
Also, guess what, he is the LOTO, democratically elected by his party members to lead Labour alongside MPs democratically elected by their constituents. If MPs have no faith in the government, the LOTO has a right and duty to try and form a government. If the other parties don't like that, don't let him, but then they don't get deadline extended. Johnson has refused to extend the Brexit deadline. Labour has refused a GNU that replaces their democratically elected leader. LDs and other Remainers have to pick what they prefer.